Georgia Democrats introduce gun seizure bill

House Bill 731, filed by Georgia democrat Mary Margaret Oliver, is one of the most extreme anti-second amendment bills the state has seen in some time. Co-sponsored by Minority Leader Stacey Abrams and Reps. Carolyn Hugley, Pat Gardine, Dar’shun Kendrick, Dee Dawkins-Haigler, the bill seeks to focus on “dangerous instrumentalities and practices” by prohibiting the “possession, sale, transport, distribution, or use of certain assault weapons, large capacity magazines, armor-piercing bullets, and incendiary .50 caliber bullets.”

The bill goes on to punishments which include control of  “the possession, sale, transport, distribution, or use of certain assault weapons, large capacity magazines, armor-piercing bullets, and incendiary .50 caliber bullets.”

Most alarming, however, is the stipulation to require seizure of the weaponry and ammunition by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation by designating both as “contraband.”

Representative Mary Margaret Oliver announced on her webpage:

[Oliver] and fifteen Democrat women House members introduced HB 731 on the first day of the 2016 Session. The bill bans assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Georgia needs debate about these weapons which are only used for rapidly killing people. Assault weapons are not necessary for deer hunting.

Georgia’s premier Second Amendment group, Georgia Carry, tweeted, “Dems finally honest about gun control, their ultimate goal is confiscation.” Other pro-gun activists say .50 caliber weapons and assault weapons are not the problem, and even most mass shootings do not occur with so-called “assault weapons.”

26
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
7 Comment threads
19 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
11 Comment authors
Speaker Ralston Addresses Proposed Assault Weapons Ban | GeorgiaPolSally ForthWill DurantLea ThraceThe Eiger Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Saltycracker
Saltycracker

It is not about legal gun control, it is the DeKalb looter protection bill.

Andrew C. Pope
Andrew C. Pope

The line “assault weapons are not necessary for deer hunting” tells me that Rep. Oliver doesn’t understand the issue she’s attempting to legislate. I mean, technically, she’s right — assault weapons are not “necessary” for deer hunting. Heck, as my bow hunting friends incessantly brag, firearms in general are not necessary for deer hunting. But, the thing is, people don’t own assault weapons because they want to hunt with them. They own assault weapons because they like to occasionally go out in the woods, or in a field, or to a gun range and fire that assault weapon. Look, I… Read more »

gcp
gcp

Its a bad bill that’s similar to NY and Connecticut law. Particularly troubling is the ban on magazines with greater than ten round capacity. We already ban some weapons under Ga. Code 16-11-123 but Oliver’s bill is unnecessary and won’t go anywhere in the legislature.

Andrew C. Pope
Andrew C. Pope

Precisely why it’s a stupid bill that harms Democrats image-wise in the state and, assuming this gets play on RedState, Drudge, Fox, etc., nationally.

blakeage80
blakeage80

This bill, like so many others from both parties, before and after it, is like a child banging on a bunch of pots and pans. They do it because they like the noise it makes.

Benevolus
Benevolus

I agree it won’t go anywhere, but really- what is the argument against it? So far laws like this appear to be constitutional.

Calypso
Calypso

Even the part about confiscation of personal, private property?

Sally Forth
Sally Forth

You got it, boat man! And MMO held a press conference on this today? Sounds like they’re feeling the Bern, plus took a stupid pill this morning.

blakeage80
blakeage80

Has confiscation of 30 round magazines and AR-15s/M-4s been really tested on a federal level? I know they recently passed these laws in some NE states, but how far have any court cases gone?

Benevolus
Benevolus

I would say the confiscation part is not good. It doesn’t look like they are planning for people to be compensated.
How about just registering those weapons and parts, but no sales or transfers?

blakeage80
blakeage80

The weapons are registered. If I remember back to my gun shop days, the FFL holder has to keep the 4473 forms (the form you have to fill out when you purchase a fire arm) for 20 years and must be ready to present them to law enforcement upon request. They also have to keep a ‘bound book’ (can be digital) that details all firearms received and sold with details about when and to whom they were purchased/sold. If the weapons are registered, then why the double step of serializing and registering the magazines? As for the no sales or… Read more »

Andrew C. Pope
Andrew C. Pope

Blake, I think the government interest is ensuring that all guns (or a substantial number of them) can be traced back to their owners and the last seller. That is, after all, one of the purposes of existing licensure requirements.

The Eiger
The Eiger

What is the point of having a registry unless the ultimate goal is for the government to know who has what and where so that the government can come and confiscate the weapon or magazines. Also, what about the AR-15 I had someone build in their garage for me? How are you going to track that? Or the 30 round magazines I bought with cash? Are you going to put pistol grips, barrels, receivers, actions and retractable stocks, night vision scopes on a registry? These are all things I can buy online and use to build a AR in my… Read more »

blakeage80
blakeage80

I agree with your overall point, but the lower receiver in your example, if purchased/manufactured legally is on the ‘the registry’ effectively.

The Eiger
The Eiger

I know people that make them. Not in their garage, but they make the receivers and then purchase everything else to build a rifle. These are the people that also have bugout bags and two years of freeze dried food buried in 5 gallon buckets in their yard. They aren’t bad people they are just a little paranoid.

Andrew C. Pope
Andrew C. Pope

Eiger, in reference to your question about Chicago: Any ban on weapons that is not enacted nationwide will ultimately fail. I believe it’s been consistently shown that, if people are unable to lawfully purchase a handgun in one jurisdiction, they will simply go to another jurisdiction to purchase the weapon or take the seedier route and buy it from someone in the jurisdiction who is not a licensed dealer. So this law isn’t going to prevent “assault weapons” from getting into the hands of Georgians that want them. It will raise the stakes if they are caught with them, but… Read more »

The Eiger
The Eiger

I don’t necessarily disagree with anything that you state in your second paragraph. The mental illness issue is one that needs to be addressed, but not from the firearm angle. It’s too hard to commit people with mental disorders to an institution where they can receive the help and meds they need.

Andrew C. Pope
Andrew C. Pope

The US and Georgia Constitutions protect you from ex post facto laws, so there’s no risk of being criminally charged for buying/possessing an assault weapon if you bought and/or possessed it prior to the passage of the law. The US and Georgia Constitutions also protect you from government takings of private property without just compensation. So, if the government wanted to confiscate your guns, they would have to give you reasonable value (most likely fair market value) for the gun. On top of that, the taking needs to be for “public use,” but that’s generally a pretty broadly construed concept.… Read more »

gcp
gcp

Mr. Pope

Look at 16-11-116 and 117. She addresses previously owned weapons with “modify” or “surrender” requirements.

gcp
gcp

Her definition of “semi automatic firearm” is quite broad and would include many firearms and magazines currently legally possessed by Georgians. For those that scream about “gun grabbing”, this bill plays to that old argument. Just because something may be constitutional doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good legislation.

gsupantherfan1
gsupantherfan1

This won’t and shouldn’t go anywhere. If the gun is purchased legally, I have no opposition to any law abiding citizen owning an assault weapon. This is just an election year bill to please members of the Democratic party.

The Eiger
The Eiger

Can we please quit calling an automatic rifle an assault weapon? Please. It is only an “assault weapon” if used in and assault. Much like a knife, bat, or handgun would be called an assault weapon if used during an assault. The term assault weapon was placed on automatic rifles by liberals to make them sounds bad so that people who are unfamiliar with firearms say, “of course people should have assault weapons. Assault is bad.”

Lea Thrace
Lea Thrace

It’s political theater. Words are very much chosen to sway public opinion. Heck look at how pro-CHOICE proponents are instead called pro-abortion by the pro-life side.

gcp
gcp

“assault” is a term used by those that equate a particular weapon with military use and thus the weapon should not be used by civilians . Not saying I agree, but that’s the idea.

Will Durant
Will Durant

Full-auto is an assault weapon with no intention other than killing people. These are obviously restricted, but in my opinion not to the degree they should be.

Semi-auto is a whole nother thing and encompasses the vast majority of all firearms sold today. There are some reasonable restrictions that should be considered to them but if the argument starts in the realm of the theater of the absurd then it isn’t worth the oxygen, or electrons.

trackback
Speaker Ralston Addresses Proposed Assault Weapons Ban | GeorgiaPol

[…] Speaker David Ralston isn’t in favor of the bill banning assault weapons proposed by Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver. In a briefing following Friday’s legislative session, […]